OCR Text |
Show THE UNDERWOOD WINS BIG LEGAL VICTORY No rl.i's of mechanism has InvolvM , in a i.ke period of time a greater amount of litigation than thai of th typewriter. I says the New York Commercial and Financial Fi-nancial World Hy fur the mnit Important HtljraMon of this rlas is that in' which the t'nrler- ood Typewriter company has Just won a eignal victory over the Remington Typewriter Type-writer people and others. This litigation has centered upon the tabulating me-hanism used on typewriters, type-writers, and an outl'ne of its hitory is .IS follows The I'nderwood typewriter came on the market and had incorporated In the machine ma-chine and as a part of It. a device In- , ven'e,! by a man of the name of Joslah n Gathrlfrht. known an a 'tabulating inechanleni " OwInK to the siiccexn of i ; the I'nderwood machine, the Remington J Typewriter company, neeing the demand the I'nderwood was creating for such a device, placed upon their machine, as an attachment, what they called ttie "OJorln tabulator" I'pon Its appearance upon the market the I'nderwood Typewriter company, known at tha1 time a. the Wagner Typewriter company, started suit aa:nt Wyckoff. Seamatis A- Benedict, the nellin agents of the Remington typewriter, type-writer, claiming that the (Jorj.n device was an infringement upon the (iathrlght patent owned hy them. Soon after this, the American Writing Machine company started a counter-suit against the Wagner Typewriter company, claiming that the (jathrlght invention was nn infringement on a patent owned by ! thern and issued to one S. hulte. To fullv understand this counter-suit. It Is neo. fii.tr y to explain that Wyckoff. pe.-imans ci Benedict. the Remington Typewriter company, the American Writing Writ-ing Ma"!:it'.e company, the Yont. r--ns-tnore and Monarch Typewriter companies are all owned by one holding company, namely . the I'nton Typewriter com pan v. i These two caies have been in the courts j for a number of years, in fact, ever t-ince 1!v At the firt trial, before .Judge ! Wheeler In the I'nited States Crcuit j court m New York, a decision was ren- I dered stating that neither party infringed I the rights of the other. i But an appi ai was taken by the I'nder- i wood company to the I'nited Stares c.r- cult I'oir' of Appeals from thi dei-islon. j an.i t ne i ase was tiled before .Jidgc.s (m!--. T.iwnhend a'lil 'o. i':rc'.ii; 1 ,l i ic-s. nt'd a oe( lsi.n bus jus: been ren- i deti I as follows. That the Worn device Is rt.'i Ir.ft -ingernent on the first r.athrlght i raten.t. w'i! ti means that tlie cIhihis m the fit st i .'lirisht pa'ent are up!. eld. and j ti:t ti.e R.-iningtrui In using the -n:t device infringes 'ip.n thr ilg'-'s of the I nderw 1 cmnpanv ; and ti e case is re- , manded to the t'ireiiit ourt. wfh In- i t-ucioni to enter a de r-e in conformity I with this opinion I L . - - - - |